-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I am fortunate to be able to play both.
Victoria does indeed have alot of micromanagement, but so does CK! CK involves building structures within each province in your country and there are something like 30 buildings you can build. Granted, the provinces you control directly will be small in the beginning, it can and will expand making it quite boring building the same stuff over and over again. Then there is your court where you need to marry your family and other members to expand it, which can be quite tedious as you have to check all these kingdoms, duchies and counties for a potential bride and then face multiple rejections before you get a marriage. Another gripe I have is the battle system, which ignores achievements in HoI and Victoria- where when you defeat an army who has no friendly province to retreat to, they are immediately destroyed. In CK, I get situations where I'm chasing an army accross the map in my own country and neighboring countries simply because they can retreat to ANY province (no military access, no friendly province required)
However, CK is getting all the attention now with patches and Victoria does have a steep learnign curve so I'd actually recommend CK over Vicky right now, but either way you must make time in the future to play the other, no matter what you choose!
Victoria does indeed have alot of micromanagement, but so does CK! CK involves building structures within each province in your country and there are something like 30 buildings you can build. Granted, the provinces you control directly will be small in the beginning, it can and will expand making it quite boring building the same stuff over and over again. Then there is your court where you need to marry your family and other members to expand it, which can be quite tedious as you have to check all these kingdoms, duchies and counties for a potential bride and then face multiple rejections before you get a marriage. Another gripe I have is the battle system, which ignores achievements in HoI and Victoria- where when you defeat an army who has no friendly province to retreat to, they are immediately destroyed. In CK, I get situations where I'm chasing an army accross the map in my own country and neighboring countries simply because they can retreat to ANY province (no military access, no friendly province required)
However, CK is getting all the attention now with patches and Victoria does have a steep learnign curve so I'd actually recommend CK over Vicky right now, but either way you must make time in the future to play the other, no matter what you choose!
Compared with CK....
Victoria is the better game technically, is more polished, and more stable. Moreover, it has had a LOT of attention lavished to the interface compared to CK.
...And yet CK is the funnier game to play (for me).
I guess it is because Victoria makes me feel like a clerk rather than a statesman, while CK makes me feel like a medieval lord (often a ruthless bastard), who is out to screw his neighbours before they screw him.
Victoria is the better game technically, is more polished, and more stable. Moreover, it has had a LOT of attention lavished to the interface compared to CK.
...And yet CK is the funnier game to play (for me).
I guess it is because Victoria makes me feel like a clerk rather than a statesman, while CK makes me feel like a medieval lord (often a ruthless bastard), who is out to screw his neighbours before they screw him.
TheDarkside said:
Because in CK times the war and battle system was quite different from WW1 and WW2. Two armies met on the battle field and when the fight was over, the looser retreated. There was no need for supply lines as supplies were raised(=plundered) from the local area. This was not perfect, but that's what you have attrition for. However, I think that provinces should take damage from passing armies for the given reason.
Peter sums it up pretty good. I would suggest you get both. Sometimes I want to be the clerk (Victoria). I like all the options at my finger tips. It makes me feel more in control and realistic.
Then again, CK is a whole lot of fun, though it pales to other Paradox games in options and historicity. For example, it has no actual historical events. The events that do pop up do not even have descriptions. Only until the recent patch was an alliance system implemented.
Then again, CK is a whole lot of fun, though it pales to other Paradox games in options and historicity. For example, it has no actual historical events. The events that do pop up do not even have descriptions. Only until the recent patch was an alliance system implemented.
For me, both CK and Victoria are constantly jostling for the "favorite Paradox game" spot. So I probably couldn't answer the question except to say "get both".
Peter Ebbesen said:
Lieber Professor Ebbesen
I'm sad for you to feel that way but have you ever given Victoria a try in multi-player setting? Humans are way more dangerous than AI in Victoria, at least that has been my experience. You know you can abuse AI and you don't exactly fear AI's military prowess, unless it's hopeless odds. Humans on the other hand keep you on your toes. You are welcome to check out some Victoria multi-player diplomacy and AAR thread to get a glimpse or idea how it might be. If you play with a bunch of ruthless players, believe me, screw your neighbor before they screw you is not exactly going to be different from what you describe in CK. There are also many tactics of screw your neighbor ranging from economic warfare, sneaky diplomatic/military maneuver, etc.
But, Victoria is not a game for everyone, it's attention to detail means you're often busy doing something, fine tuning your economy, conducting diplomacy, there are just so many things to do in Victoria.
Yes. I beta-tested it.Blitzkrieg said:
There are certainly options to screw around with your opponents, but - to me - POP-tracking and market managing seemed to take precedence over statesmanship. I am pleased to hear that people are now enjoying Victoria MP, but it is not for me, when I can play CK MP or EU2 MP in my limited time instead.
Peter Ebbesen said:
They range from old fashion player to player diplomacy to other more sneaky ways.
For example, if Russian player is strong and racked up a lot of BB from aggressive expansion, as Sweden, you can give your bordering province to UK so UK AI will probably DoW Russia for you.
Pop tracking and market management is a lot more manageable once you set things up and monitor with ledger. Actually, during bad wars, I don't bother with my econ management that much, war will consume my time as I need to move my troops to counter my opponent's moves or inititate my own surprises. Vicky's war is a lot more fun than EU2 with different units and different tech. EU2 combat has simpler tech system and you know you're in trouble when your opponent outclass you in tech.
I prefer Vic. CK is a bit boring for me.
Without dynastic mariages, what do you do in CK ?
Without dynastic mariages, what do you do in CK ?
Superpowers are already set in Victoria but I think Vicky does a better job in simulating the period
CK is further back in time when strong nations are not yet apparent (its also tougher to be a bully with feudal laws and no nationalism to utilise your countries full strength) and its a fair game for everybody but understandably the feudal era is harder to simulate
CK is further back in time when strong nations are not yet apparent (its also tougher to be a bully with feudal laws and no nationalism to utilise your countries full strength) and its a fair game for everybody but understandably the feudal era is harder to simulate
Get CK
For a while I thought Paradox games were going down the drain... HoI was good but severely paled in comparison to EU2, and Victoria I have no taste for.
...then CK was released, which I consider better than EU2 even. Playing minors even in singleplayer can actually be fun.
For a while I thought Paradox games were going down the drain... HoI was good but severely paled in comparison to EU2, and Victoria I have no taste for.
...then CK was released, which I consider better than EU2 even. Playing minors even in singleplayer can actually be fun.
I think the original poster end up choosing Victoria, because it was what's on shelf.
i almost cried when my last ruler in CK died. and i was al
ways jumping up and down wen he got a nother kid or something nice happened to him. then he became a wery very cruel man and i had to kill him
ways jumping up and down wen he got a nother kid or something nice happened to him. then he became a wery very cruel man and i had to kill him
Well, I'm pretty disappointed by CK :wacko:
I'm a great EU1/2 fan, and HoI was already a shock to me (mm hell ! ), so I passed on Vicky.
After reading some CK reviews I bought it, and indeed the game system is fascinating and creates a fully believable Medieval world ! But man, the game is booooooring !!!! :wacko:o I 'd really want to love it but whenever I play I quit after 30 min of ,well, marriage list-reading ("Joe marries Pam" ) and waiting for stg to happen ...
In the end I fired up new EU2 games with the wondeful latest mods (AGCEEP and AJFIFU). Those rock !
Frankly no other Paradox game matches the mix of the brilliant EU2 design (undoubtly thanks to P.Thibault, the designer of original EU boardgame) and Paradox' attention to detail and unending support. The other games are impressive work and labor of love, but to me the gameplay isn't as good, far from it...
I'm a great EU1/2 fan, and HoI was already a shock to me (mm hell !
), so I passed on Vicky.After reading some CK reviews I bought it, and indeed the game system is fascinating and creates a fully believable Medieval world ! But man, the game is booooooring !!!! :wacko:
o I 'd really want to love it but whenever I play I quit after 30 min of ,well, marriage list-reading ("Joe marries Pam" ) and waiting for stg to happen ...In the end I fired up new EU2 games with the wondeful latest mods (AGCEEP and AJFIFU). Those rock !
Frankly no other Paradox game matches the mix of the brilliant EU2 design (undoubtly thanks to P.Thibault, the designer of original EU boardgame) and Paradox' attention to detail and unending support. The other games are impressive work and labor of love, but to me the gameplay isn't as good, far from it...
I definitely prefer CK over Vicky but both are good and these days it is only the Paradox Europa game engine games I find myself coming back to over and over again. Other games may be a one time diversion but without the replayability.
I would keep in mind that CK is much less mature than Vicky at this point. We must remember these are incredibly complex games and it is virtually impossible for a small beta test to uncover even a fraction of all the potential issues. If one is a fan of Paradox games one understands that the first year after the release of the game is essentially a large scale beta test. This is not because Paradox is lazy or sloppy but quite the opposite. It is because of the radically complex models these games are built around and only very large scale testing can bring them to perfection. One thing for sure the programmers at Paradox love their games, listen to their customers and never stop trying to perfect them. Johan is still regularly releasing tweaks and improvements to EUII for heavens sake, what other gaming company shows that level of devotion to its games and customers.
So, I have little doubt that as we work through this first year, CK will become a truly landmark game of grand strategy.
Keep up the great work guys.
I would keep in mind that CK is much less mature than Vicky at this point. We must remember these are incredibly complex games and it is virtually impossible for a small beta test to uncover even a fraction of all the potential issues. If one is a fan of Paradox games one understands that the first year after the release of the game is essentially a large scale beta test. This is not because Paradox is lazy or sloppy but quite the opposite. It is because of the radically complex models these games are built around and only very large scale testing can bring them to perfection. One thing for sure the programmers at Paradox love their games, listen to their customers and never stop trying to perfect them. Johan is still regularly releasing tweaks and improvements to EUII for heavens sake, what other gaming company shows that level of devotion to its games and customers.
So, I have little doubt that as we work through this first year, CK will become a truly landmark game of grand strategy.
Keep up the great work guys.
CK rules. Vicky has always struck me as just micromanagement. And CK MP is just perfect, apart from the fact that you need a hour to start it
CK is not available where I live (Vancouver) but I am sure it will be better than Victoria. It has to be. Victoria is quite dry and lacks the appeal of other Paradox games I have played. Perhaps it is the time period the game is set in or perhaps its the fact it feels more like using a calculator than playing a game. And no, I do not find it too challenging or too complex. I just dont find it all that fun.
The consensus on Vicky forums tends to be "CK is too simple/boring", while consensus on the CK forums tends to be "Vicky is too complicated/too much micromanagement". Obviously, while both games are great, they both appeal to different types of people. Those who like to be in full control and who are willing to put in the time to learn how to control it will prefer Vicky, while those who prefer an abstracted version of controlling their country and who would rather get to playing now rather than spend hours learning will prefer CK.
As for military/conquest, the comparison is identical to that of the rest of the games:
CK is simpler but quicker to get into - you call your troops, call your vassal troops, and march them into the enemy's borders. The land being fought over affects attrition, but doesn't affect combat much (if at all? I played a few hundred years of CK and haven't noticed effects there). If the troops need ships to get to where they're going, a navy appears out of thin air and disappears when it's no longer needed. When fighting heathens, as soon as a province is occupied it becomes part of your realm.
Vicky warmongering takes longer to get into and is more complicated. One needs to plan a war, building a standing army (choose which units to build) and deciding whether to mobilize or not, which takes 2 months. When fighting, terrain and entrenchments affect combat - the rule of thumb is, the further into the game you are, the more screwed the attacker gets Then again, in favorable terrain and given time to dig in, a unit of 20,000 can hold off a force of 200,000. The combat engine seems more robust as it includes envelopments/encirclements, landings and leaders in addition to terrain/trenches. Again, more options but more to keep track of.
In the end, a CK player gets a thrill out of making a small, insignificant count a King while a Vicky player gets the same thrill out of making a backwards, uncivilized country a Great Power. Decide which type you are and pick your game; they're hard to compare as they're both great in addition to being aimed at different types of players.
As for military/conquest, the comparison is identical to that of the rest of the games:
CK is simpler but quicker to get into - you call your troops, call your vassal troops, and march them into the enemy's borders. The land being fought over affects attrition, but doesn't affect combat much (if at all? I played a few hundred years of CK and haven't noticed effects there). If the troops need ships to get to where they're going, a navy appears out of thin air and disappears when it's no longer needed. When fighting heathens, as soon as a province is occupied it becomes part of your realm.
Vicky warmongering takes longer to get into and is more complicated. One needs to plan a war, building a standing army (choose which units to build) and deciding whether to mobilize or not, which takes 2 months. When fighting, terrain and entrenchments affect combat - the rule of thumb is, the further into the game you are, the more screwed the attacker gets
Then again, in favorable terrain and given time to dig in, a unit of 20,000 can hold off a force of 200,000. The combat engine seems more robust as it includes envelopments/encirclements, landings and leaders in addition to terrain/trenches. Again, more options but more to keep track of.In the end, a CK player gets a thrill out of making a small, insignificant count a King while a Vicky player gets the same thrill out of making a backwards, uncivilized country a Great Power. Decide which type you are and pick your game; they're hard to compare as they're both great in addition to being aimed at different types of players.